Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1333

Improvement Trust, Barnala - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ranjit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Jindal

21 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH

                                     

                   First Appeal No.1333 of 2012

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 08.10.2012        

                                                         Date of Decision : 21.08.2015

 

Improvement Turst Barnala, through its Executive Officer, Barnala.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …..Appellant/Opposite Party

                                               

                                      Versus

 

Ranjit Singh son of Kartar Singh, resident of Shaheed Jeeta Singh Nagar, Near Court Chowk, Barnala, Teshil & District Barnala.

 

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Respondent/Complainant

 

 

First Appeal against order dated 09.07.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                   :    Sh.Gaurav Jindal, Advocate  

          For the respondent               :    Sh.Tribhuwan Singla, Advocate

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondent (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 09.07.12 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Barnala, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant at own expenses of the OP and further to pay composite compensation of Rs.10,000/- to complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant in this appeal.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP, on the averments that he was allotted one residential plot no.1 at Shaheed Jeeta Singh Shopping-cum-Residential 6.3 Acre Scheme. The demarcation of the said plot was given to the complainant on 22.01.1982 and on the same day, its possession was also handed over to the complainant in pursuance to the letter NONSP (B)-81/32 dated 14.01.1982. The complainant was further directed to get the site plan of the house sanctioned from OP and complete the construction on the said plot, as per above letter. The plot was allotted to the complainant, as a displaced person, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme. The complainant applied to OP for sanction of the site plan for construction the house on the said plot, vide application no.91 dated 22.12.1994. The complainant constructed the house on the said plot after sanctioning the site plan and kept his residence thereat. The complainant got released one water supply connection no.6878 on 03.02.1988 and sewerage connection no.3671 on 20.06.1990. The complainant paid all the installments to OP and nothing remained due towards the same. On 08.12.2009, the complainant wrote to OP to get sale deed executed of the plot in his favour at his own expenses, but OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 22.09.2011, the complainant approached OP to execute the sale deed of the plot in question in his favour, but to no effect. Legal notice was also served to OP by the complainant in this regard, but it evoked no response. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OP to pay the amount of Rs.1 lac for increase in registration charges, besides Rs.50,000/- for loss of reputation and mental harassment and Rs.20,000/-, as composite costs.

3.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer. The complainant himself is at fault and cannot take benefit of his own wrong. The plot in question measuring 300 sq. yards was allotted to complainant, vide Trust Resolution No.180 dated 23.07.1980  and total price of the plot was Rs.21,000/- with all the rights and liabilities of the said plots, subject to terms and conditions of the allotment. The agreement for sale was duly signed by allottee and the OP. The possession of the plot was handed over to the allottee. It was mentioned in the sale agreement that allottee shall have to construct house within 3 years from the date of allotment after getting the demarcation and after getting the plan of proposed building approved from the Trust. The complainant violated the terms and conditions of the said agreement for sale and other documents executed between the party by non-construction of complete habitable/dwelling unit comprising of at least of one living room, a kitchen, a bathroom with W/C with sewerage, water and electricity connection with boundary wall in scheduled time. The construction time was assessed as 12.04.1996 on account of electricity connection and non-construction fee only for year 1995 and for first six months of 1996 along with interest  due from the complainant as non-constructions fee up to year 1994 was deposited by the complainant. The complainant also encroached upon 108 square yards adjoining land of the OP. The complainant did not make construction within prescribed time and  non-construction fee for the period 01.01.1995 to 390.06.1996 amounting to Rs.49,440/- along with interest up to 2012 remained due from the complainant. OP further averred that there is Arbitration Clause in the agreement and matter needs to be referred to them. The complaint was contested even on merits by the OP on the above-referred grounds. The OP alleged in the written reply on merits that complainant is at fault and wanted to take benefit of his own wrong by misleading the Consumer Forum. The OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Ranjit Singh complainant Ex.CW-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14. As against it, OP tendered in evidence the affidavit of Ravinder Kumar Executive Officer, Improvement Trust Barnala Ex.RW-1/A along with copies of the documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-9. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Barnala, accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 09.07.2012. Dissatisfied with the order of District Forum dated 09.07.2012, the OP now appellant has carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case with the able assistance of counsel for the parties.

6.      This fact is not in dispute in this case that the complainant was allotted residential plot no.1 in Shaheed Jeeta Singh Shopping-cum-Residential 6.3 Acre Scheme by OP. The demarcation of the said plot was given to the complainant on 22.01.1982 and its possession was also delivered to him, vide letter No. NST(B)-81/32 dated 14.01.1982. The complainant was sanctioned the site plan for construction of the plot, vide letter no.ITB-94/061 dated 30.12.1994. The above-referred factual matrix is undisputed in this case. The complainant further pleaded that water supply connection no.6878  was released on 03.02.1988 and sewerage connection no.3671 was released by the concerned Department at the house of the complainant on 20.06.1990. The averment of the complainant is that he has paid all the installments and nothing is due against him, however OP failed to execute the sale deed in his favour of the plot in question.  On the other hand, case of  the OP is that complainant has not made construction within the prescribed time, hence no construction fee for the period of 01.01.1995 to 30.06.1996 amounting to Rs.49,440/- along with interest up to 2012 could be due from the complainant. The averment of the OP is that sale deed would be executed on deposit of non-construction charges with interest, which accrued thereupon by complainant.

7.      We have examined the affidavit of the complainant, vide Ex.CW-1/A on the record. Ex.C-2 is letter by Executive Officer of the OP to complainant regarding sanction of the site plan. Ex.C-3 is the verification regarding water and sewerage connection in the name of the complainant, vide no.6878 dated 03.02.1988 and No.3671 dated 20.06.1990. Ex.C-4 is legal notice sent by the complainant to OP. Ex.C-5 is postal receipt. Ex.C-6 is another legal notice. Ex.C-7 is postal receipt. Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-14 are receipt of the amounts deposited by the complainant with the OP. The OP relied upon the affidavit of Ravinder Kumar Executive Officer Improvement Trust/OP Ex.RW-1/A on the record. He has stated in his affidavit that complainant did not make construction within the prescribed period of time, as per allotment terms and conditions and hence non-construction fee for the period 01.01.1995 to 30.06.1996 amounting to Rs.49,440/- along with interest up to 2012 became due from the complainant to OP. He further stated that sale deed would be executed on deposit of the non-construction charges by the complainant for the period of 01.01.1995 to 30.06.1996 along with interest due uptil 2012. Ex.R-1 is policy guidelines circulated by the Punjab Government to Chairmen of all Improvement Trusts to follow the uniform policy in construction charges. After expiry of three years from the date of allotment, non-construction charges would be allowed on payment of  fee at the following rates:-

Ist year of extension    Rs.1.40 per sq.yd.

2nd year of extension Rs.1.8% per sy.yd.

3rd year of extension  Rs.2.30 per sq.yd.

4th year of extension  Rs.4.15 per sq.yd.

5th year of extension  Rs.5.60 per sq.yd.

Ex.R-2 is the letter sent by the Government of Punjab to The Chairmen of Improvement Trusts for non-construction charges. Ex.          R-3 and Ex.R-4 are guidelines issued by Department of Local Government Punjab. Ex.R-5 is letter addressed to the Chairmen of all Improvement Trusts regarding fixation of rates of non-construction fee for the year 2001. Ex.R-6 is noting of the office of OP to the effect that the electricity connection was installed on 12.04.1996 and non-construction charges became due of the plot of the complainant from 01.01.1995 to  30.06.1996, as calculated in it to the extent of Rs.49,440/-. Ex.R-7 is the letter issued to complainant and Ex.R-8 is agreement of sale executed between the parties.

8.      The dispute between the parties is confined to non-construction charges for the period 01.01.1995 to  30.06.1996 along with interest due up to 2012 in this case, which comes to Rs.49,440/ from complainant by OP. As per pleaded case of the OP, the complainant could not prove it on the record that OP had not provided the basic facilities and amenities to the complainant three years prior to the raising of non-construction charges from 1995 and 1996 along with interest for the period from 01.01.1995 to 30.06.1996. We find that, as per pleaded case of the complainant, the complainant received the possession of the plot on 22.01.1982 when it was demarcated, vide letter No.NST(B)-81/32. The site plan was sanctioned to the complainant, vide application no.91 dated 22.12.1994. We find that there is no question regarding raising the construction by the complainant before sanctioning of the site plan, vide application no.91 dated 22.12.1994. The site plan was sanctioned, vide letter no.ITB-94/061 dated 30.12.1994. The complainant could have raised the construction only after sanction of the site plan, if site plan was sanctioned on 30.12.1994, then obviously OP could not have raised non-construction charges up till 30.12.1994 from the complainant. Three years period was to be given from the date of sanctioning the site plan, when the site plan was sanctioned on 30.12.1994, then there is no question of raising non-construction charges by the OP from  the complainant for the period from 01.01.1995 to 30.06.1996 to the extent of Rs.49,440/-. Consequently, we find that OP has not acted within the purview of the statute. The District Forum has, thus, rightly set aside the demand of the non-construction charges because there is no question of raising non-construction charges before sanctioning of the site plan by the OP. We are not in agreement with the order of the District Forum to the extent of directing the OP to bear all the expenses of sale deed, which were to be recovered from the official of the OP. This direction of the District Forum is set aside in this appeal. The OP is directed to execute the sale deed of the plot in dispute in favour of the complainant at the expenses of the complainant by quashing demand of non-construction charges to the extent of Rs.49,440/-  along with interest due till 2012 therefrom.

9.      Consequently, the appeal of the appellant is partly accepted by setting aside the direction of the District Forum directing the OP to bear all expenses of the sale deed to be executed in favour of the complainant, whereas the appeal of the appellant is party dismissed with regard to quashment of non-construction charges by directing the OP to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant at the expenses of the complainant. The amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/- is not disturbed in this appeal.

10.    As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant partly and direct the OP to execute the sale deed in favour of complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and complainant would bear the expenses of execution of sale deed of his own end.  We affirm the order of the District Forum on the point of quashment of non-construction charges i.e. Rs.49,440/- and awarding the compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

11     The appellant has deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the respondent/complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount, if any due, shall be paid by the appellant/OP to the respondent/complainant within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

12.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                          (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

August 21,  2015.                                                          

(ravi)